Great, now we have confirmed Lemmy is a basically a bunch of un ironical Unabomber stans
Even a broken clock is right twice a day. Peaceful protests do not work. It’s why I am okay with calling the George Floyd protests riots, because they worked.
interstin gas fuck
So, since he seems identified, do we know the link they’ve made between the two different photos by now?
Remember when in the french revolution everyone just asked the nobles pretty please?
I don’t know if I’ve ever resonated with something so much in my life.
While I am too old to advocate for violence, this line hit me pretty hard:
"Violence never solved anything" is a statement uttered by cowards and predators."I’m of the opinion both violent and nonviolent means are probably necessary and there’s plenty of nonviolent means of engagement. no war has been fought without support from somewhere, whether that’s a national war machine or the supporting element of an insurgency. there’s always logistics, resources, and well organization that has to occur.
I’m in no condition to fight myself, but over the coming decades I’m gonna have to be thinking about how much violence I’m comfortable being around and how much we can support people in the thick of it. violence is definitely present already in day to day life, but it’s more of an orphan-crushing-machine kind of violence that feels more normal.
This is a silly ad hominem argument though, an indication that what he’s arguing against is too valid to refute on its own merits.
Violence solves things. But by the powerless? No, historically speaking that just leads to military action, often followed by mass executions. Fighting fascism with violence is like fighting fire with gasoline. They feed off that shit. Maybe you can argue it worked in Haiti, albeit with a lot of help from yellow fever. But have you been to Haiti?
He’s right that peaceful protests never solve anything. But organizing and acting as a bloc solves a lot. General strikes, civil disobedience, boycotts, even voting as a group has a strong track record of changing things.
I want to believe that peaceful organization like civil disobedience leads to change, but I can’t recall seeing that work in recent history…
How recent is recent? Tunisia, Egypt (well until the population turned out to be too dumb for democracy anyway) are examples.
It hasn’t worked in the US because it’s been too half-assed and the existence of democratic options lowers incentives. Contrast the successful civil disobedience during the civil rights era, where the right to participate in elections was one of the things being denied. But with the increasing signs that democracy is being controlled by a few billionaires, it may see a comeback.
well until the population turned out to be too dumb for democracy anyway
Liberals when
and the existence of democratic options lowers incentives.
Those don’t exist anymore. Not in any real capacity, at least. More like utterly useless window dressing and decorative veneer, much like how North Korea is “democratic” simply because they put that word into the country’s name.
Corporations own nearly all the politicians short of ones like Bernie Sanders and OAC. Corporations write the laws and tell the politicians what to vote for. Corporations own and control EVERYTHING, and you have weapons-grade child-like naïvité if you think the working class has any real political power left in America.
The unionized working class has plenty of power. Both parties catered to unions during the campaigns. Why? Because every politician is afraid of a bunch of people who could go either way deciding to vote as one. If there were one overarching union representing everyone in the working class, regardless of race, location, or position, the minimum wage would be $100k/year.
Fighting fascism with violence is like fighting fire with gasoline.
Remind me again how Hitler’s Germany remained Fascist and in control of all of continental Europe over the last 75 years…
I’ve always said this but got chased out of the room (downvoted to hell), peaceful protest is a bunch of bullshit and won’t do shit. It never will. It’s always just ignored. Rioting and violence IS the only option when protesting peacefully is ignored. I mean look at the George Floyd protests and how they actually made change. Look at the French and their protests…etc. Peaceful protesting is quite literally a bunch of people kidding themselves.
People love to use examples like MLK and Gandhi as the poster children for peaceful protest achieving results, and years ago I’d have naively agreed.
But the reality of it is that they could not have succeeded without the threat of violence from more militant alternatives, such as Malcolm X/The Black Panthers or the Ghadar revolutionaries/Babbar Akali Sikhs.
It’s the carrot-and-stick metaphor. The powers that be will ignore any nonviolent attempts for reform until a violent movement makes the nonviolent alternative more appealing.
Capitalism has long asserted that there are checks in place to protect people. Consumer protection laws, industry regulations, collective bargaining, and voting with your wallet are some of the myths that capitalism says are supposed to stop bad businesses from hurting people. But when we see these systems failing en masse, and the powers that be refuse to do anything about it, what recourse is left?
People don’t understand that more than protecting people, social policies such as housing, welfare, and medical aid programs protect the capitalist system itself.
social policies such as housing, welfare, and medical aid programs protect the capitalist system itself.
It was not always like this but yes over as 40 years the money has been looted and used against the working class.
It took wage slaves all this time but I think it is finally registering:
How is everybody working so hard, we are working more and we are more productive but nobody but few have any more money
The money is being extracted via complex legal, social and propaganda mechanisms and we are letting it happen by being obedient dogs fighting rich man’s fake news stories.
If you take a look at europe, there is plenty of countries who score way better on these issues, and the underlying system is still capitalism. It might not be perfect but if you include a social aspect and regulate in the interest of the population I believe it is the best system we have.
Both are necessary. The first creates public support. The second “creates government support”
A little direct action can be surprisingly effective
Exactly. It is reaching that point where a lot of people are realizing that peace doesn’t work anymore.
If the political pressure was high enough, political powers would buckle. But see who got voted for president? Its clear that the people chose this themselves sadly
The peaceful protest has a purpose. It is the purpose of due diligence. It is to show an escalation. A point at which other avenues were tried and ignored leaving one with no choice but to try others that are more militant. You try all the avenues. And leave the last resort as a last resort. But historically we know that more often than not real change happens when there is either the threat of violence or the actuality of violence.
People as a whole don’t seem to be invested until it impacts them. It’s hard to impact people enough with peaceful protest to change their minds. That’s why blocking highways or major thoroughfares were threatened with violence. Because the point of protest is twofold. It is to educate. But more importantly it is to inconvenience people. Because without the inconvenience, they do not get invested.
You live in a country that couldn’t elect Bernie as a president. There’s no peaceful protest happening. And yet you claim violence is the only option.
In reality, half of your country simply disagrees with you. Start your violence, get a civil war, and maybe you’ll finally settle things somewhere somehow.
But don’t bullshit about effectiveness of peaceful protest.
Trump won a majority vote in the most recent election. Peacefully, your country chose corpos over moderate middle (there’s no left in your politics). Their peaceful protest works flawlessly. You’re just not on the winning side of the protest so you call for violence. You will lose this fight too.
I understand why people are upset but its a sad reality, that you just don’t have the masses on your side. I think your point is the crux to all of this. If a majority doesn’t get behind your conviction then violence will not solve your problem.
It’s a point that’s impossible to get across in this echo chamber. But it’s also why this echo chamber will never achieve anything.
Via democracy or violence, for a regime change you first need to figure out a way to get the majority to agree with you.
and how they actually made change
Uh…
Organized labor can also take some non violent action like general strikes. The important thing is the organization part, once you’re organized you’ve got power whether it’s violent or not.
A smaller less organized population can definitely use violence effectively, but it still takes critical mass to affect permanent change.
Join or create community groups and labour unions
If peaceful protesting worked to affect change, it would be illegal
Thank you!!!
That reminds me of another quote.
I mean look at the George Floyd protests and how they actually made change
Did they really, though?
Yeah, I agree with their point but I really don’t think this is the example to use
I don’t disagree with a lot of what the Unabomber wrote. I don’t disagree with this person’s hatred of the healthcare system.
But you cannot assassinate your way out of capitalism.
It just does not work that way. You cannot assassinate corporations into putting people over profits when they are legally required to do the opposite and you cannot assassinate your way into a law being changed.
I think we can actually. It just does work that way. People a are very discouraged by fear, and these oligarchs are no different.
You know what oligarchs can afford? More security than you can imagine. This one just didn’t think to. Do you think any of the other ones will make that mistake? Who do you think will be paying for that security?
Sounds to me like becoming an oligarch is a downgrade from normal life where you can walk where you like.
Maybe, but that does not change what I said. They won’t be paying for the security. Premiums will go up. This will not do anything to stop the capitalist healthcare system.
Not with that attitude you won’t…
Not with any attitude regarding assassinating your way out of capitalism.
It simply will not work.
And if you think healthcare in America is going to get cheaper or fairer because of this, you know nothing about America.
Is there a historical precedent you can point to that proves your statement here?
Are you serious? How about World War I?
How about it? Literally nothing to do with ending capitalism. The assasination of Franz Ferdinand was done in the name of Serbian nationalism. How does it apply here? You are grasping at straws, try again.
Gavrilio Princip was an anarchist. Despite what libertarians might have you believe, they are not and never have been fans of capitalism. So no, I’m not.
I agree with you.
Imo, we need something besides assasinations/sabotages. We have to educate ourselves and others into trusting each other, working with each other, having empathy and understanding solidarity.
But I don’t see a way out of capitalism without violence, sadly.Violence? Maybe. Targeted assassinations? No way. This will just make insurance premiums go up because the companies will all hire huge security details and pass those costs on to the people forced to pay for insurance.
As much as people are disagreeing, you’re right. The systemic pressure is too great to fix it using fear of assassination alone. We need to change the rules if we want to change the game.
Tell that to the French
That was a massive popular revolution, not targeted assassination. So why would I tell that to the French?
People also always leave out the fact that it took only 15 years to go from that popular uprising to an emperor being crowned who had just as much power as the king who was executed.
Yeah French revolution didn’t have any lasting impact on global society
Should just kept the king and worked within the system lll
I didn’t say any of those things or even imply them. Why are you putting a bunch of nonsense in my mouth?
You were down playing its impact and making these implications by omission.
If you disagree with my assessment you are free to clarify your position on the French revolution and its impact on the class relations;)
I disagree with you putting words in my mouth. If you don’t understand what I meant, ask me. Don’t lie.
In that vein, revolutions have as much of a chance to end poorly as to end well. Look at what is happening in Syria right now. There are a lot of players. The ideal arrangement would be peaceful power sharing inside of a democratic framework, but there is every chance that Assad will be replaced with another violent authoritarian regime.
I am sure bootlicking will drive change
Who’s boots am I licking? Please quote me doing so.
You shill regime propaganda while pretending to on working class
It is uncouth
Please quote me.
Or are you lying?
What does that sentence even mean?
The current system was forged with violence. What so you think is gonna beat it? Thoughts and prayers?
Whether or not it can be resolved with violence, it will not be resolved with targeted assassinations by a handful of people.
There is no example where a capitalist system was toppled with targeted assassinations. There are lots of examples where the security state got a whole hell of a lot more oppressive after them though.
I’m sure that totally won’t happen this time in the U.S. for sure.
That’s such bullshit, security escalation happens either way, they don’t need any excuse, just see the track record. Also, it’s not like anyone is saying this killing solved capitalism, they just know its impact has shaken the ideological foundation a lot more than finger-wagging at people on the internet
People are absolutely saying that this will change everything.
I never implied that, but it’s definetely something that didn’t seem possible in many mines before
The Internet has not changed the ideological foundation in the slightest. It has sparked some calls for reform, but the capitalistic ideology hasn’t been changed at all through this murder.
I said shaken, change takes longer, but things like this are part of it
Removed by mod
You can’t ‘thoughts and prayers’ your way out of capitalism either.
And you will find that out when your rates go up because all of the insurance companies will hire massive security teams to protect their executives and pass that on to you.
Removed by mod
But you can kill innocent people.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ted_Kaczynski#Bombings
Because I don’t know what a computer store owner or a secretary or a graduate student did to deserve having a bomb go off in their hands.
And people here seem increasingly willing to let innocent people get hurt or killed in this new war against CEOs. I find it really, really disturbing.
Me too tbh. I really don’t wish to abandon lemmy as I left reddit, since I prefer a federated system to it but all these posts are making me think. I just have this ethical principle where murder in most cases is bad and don’t like seeing violence being advocated.
Removed by mod
I see you haven’t visited a fuckcars corner of the Internet.
Car accident kills innocent people all the time and nobody’s blaming car drivers for it.
What the fuck are you even talking about? What exactly do you think anti-drunk driving laws are about, targeting Chevrolet for their negligence?
Removed by mod
It doesn’t hurt to remind the ruling class once in a while whose boss.
But yeah. A revolution will take a lot more than a targeted assination of a couple CEOs.
Does it help? Because I’m guessing what will happen here is CEOs will just get big security details and less-discerning copycats will end up killing innocent people.
And rates will continue to rise and not one less person will be denied.
In the short term yes you’re right.
But look at the populist anger this action sparked. These kind of extrajudicial killings that rile up the population, are very much associated with revolutions and changes in power. (Sometimes for good, sometimes for bad).
Dude, America just elected a plutocrat dictator. There’s not going to be socialized medicine any time in the near future and insurance companies will pass the cost of their security teams on to the people forced to pay for their needless existences.
That plutocrat was elected through a manipulation of populist rage.
Check out the policy proposal forums RFK and Trump set up for their supporters. Expanding Medicare has more upvotes than downvotes
Paul Krugmann wrote an interesting piece touching on this yesterday (Gift Article) https://www.nytimes.com/2024/12/09/opinion/elites-euro-social-media.html?unlocked_article_code=1.gU4.cSdP.OL0VogKNmVT3&smid=nytcore-ios-share&referringSource=articleShare
What difference does that make now? Why do you think they actually care what their supporters want?
I don’t. But it means that these people may not be so far from the same ideal as us. Which matters in convincing people for a revolution, and elections later on (if they still will be free and fair after Trump).
In fact, polling showed, a substantial number of people in 2016 and 2020 went from Bernie voting in primaries to voting Trump. The people want someone who isn’t scared to criticise neoliberal elitism.
deleted by creator
Expanding Medicare has more upvotes than downvotes
You really think this represents US society at large? I think you’ll need a better source than that.
No security is foolproof, and a security detail has precious little ability to withstand a raging mob. Importantly, there are only so many former spec ops for hire. Most of these psychopaths will have to settle for 3rd rate rentacops.
Anda security detail has previous little ability to withstand a raging mob.
Which, again, is not targeted assassination.
The same method probably won’t work again.
Mental therapy is the way. Our government is an expression of our massed anxiety and disconnectedness. Cure the insanity and society will follow.
The ubiquitous insanity that got Trump elected, and winning him the popular vote as well?
And you think assassinating CEOs will somehow cure that because it is somehow “therapy?”
I didn’t say that.
Then what was your point in relation to what I was saying about targeted assassinations not fixing capitalism?
So if you read into Kaczynski a bit, in a way he’s kinda history’s first incel too. He went off into the woods because he was upset about getting rejected by a girl and went super nice guy™ on not just her but life too. He blamed technology on his inability to read into a woman and he was too insecure to learn from it.
This guy is doing something else, he attacked the elite not because of technology and their relationship but because of their wealth and direct actions.
history’s first incel
What definition of incel are you using that eliminates the rest of history?
Well fair enough…I’d still call him one thought
deleted by creator
His upbringing doesnt diminish his activism. The consequences for him are the same as a poor person as well.
that remains to be seen. he has access to resources poor people don’t.
Yes he is from a rich background… So plebs should not respect the work he has done
i said only what i said, intending to imply only that his outcomes are not likely to be the same as someone poor.
I’d be shocked if his family helps him in any way.
yeah, that crossed my mind also. i could see it going either way.
Apparently about enough to be feel solidarity with the rest of the working class.
He is ID’d the sources of issue more precisely.
Internet liberated the flow info enough for a smart person to connect the dots better.
Uncle Ted was working within the framework of the old world. A lot of shit that is common knowledge to a wage slave now, was reserved to the elites.
Ted’s thesis was not wrong but it was very crude.
He’s right tho.
The one time I resorted to violence, it 100% solved my problem. I slapped my bully in class so hard people’s ears rang. We ended up becoming friends later on lol.
I had a guy trying to bully me a long time ago, i got fed up with him pretty quickly.
I turned around, grabbed him by the throat and pushed him up against the wall after which i punched him.
Never bothered me again, his and my own parents both agreed: “he had it coming”.
Now that i’m more mature, i actually feel bad for him because even his own parents didn’t try to defend him. Seeing how he behaved, this was definitely part of the cause.
He needed his parents to be there for him, but they just gave up on him from the start.
classic defeat means friendship trope
Violence is the supreme authority from which all other authority is derived.
Oh good lord. He kept the gun and the fake ID?
I guess MS in Computer Science doesn’t mean you’re smart.
I guess you didn’t gotta be smart to press A a few times when there’s a monster in front of you.
Where should he have deposed with it not being found? If he had multiple IDs its stupid tho he showed the same one as he knew they were after him
I spend my working life surrounded by PhDs, have done so for ~28 years now, and let me assure you: education and intelligence are orthogonal.
I worked in higher ed computer support at a major research university for 12 years, believe me I know.
I’m guessing he kept it all intentionally. He had the manifesto on him, probably expecting “accidental” suicide by cop in hopes that his message would continue and not be painted over by the media. Yeah, he could have ditched the gun, but again, perhaps he didn’t want there to be any shadow of a doubt that he is guilty. This was an intentional sacrifice in hopes of making a change.
Yeah, I realized about 30 seconds after I wrote that… “he wanted to keep the gun and the ID as proof that he was the guy”.
He escaped clean, and then let himself get caught so he could make his case in court.
Let’s see if he plays the next hand: plead ‘not guilty’, refuse all plea agreements, and demand a jury trial.
To be fair if you’re never caught that’s probably the smartest thing to do.
Someone discovering a gun is 100% gonna call the police and bam they have a good clue.
I can walk 1/2 a mile in any direction and find a body of water or deep woods where it would never be found. Also, I’d field strip it and chunk the parts in different places.
Do you think he had access to those places without looking suspicious?
He was on the run in a town he has no connection too.
There’s water in central park. Would’ve been nothing to chuck the pistol in a pond. Break it down a bit if you’re extra. Slide in one stream, barrel in another, mag, grip, etc until you’ve disposed of it. Or trash cans at various bus stops on the way down to VA. Tbf it’s really easy to back seat something like this. His brain must’ve been running a mile a minute, it’s honestly impressive how well he did
The online fundraiser for him has already raised about 19K. Seems to have just started today.
Ted was spot on and I believe most of his predication became true.
hmm interesting review.
Except the problem is that humans are cognitively advanced than other animals. We should be able to find some way to reason out our differences, otherwise we’re always going to be stuck in a dark cave of our own making. What’s the fucking point of humanity then?
The problem is that there aren’t effective ways to curtail sociopathic behaviors which come to the surface because of our current economic tool of choice. Tbh, it will not matter what economic tool we use because the greed problem and self-preservation problem will remain. It always does!
We should be working towards developing safeguards and mechanisms to protect humanitarian ideals, and to curtail sociopathic behaviors. I think a big part of this is that people should elect better leaders. If you’re forced to choose “lesser of two evils”, then there should be a mechanism to organize an effective write-in choice.
If someone then comes to kill you for making democratic choices, as happens in autocratic regimes, then self-defense is valid and justified.
It hasn’t been established that intelligence is a requisite for survival.
If we think of intelligence as goal-directed and adaptive behavior, then natural selection will select for competitive traits, and so whatever ended up losing was less intelligent in some sense, even if it’s a single-cell organism.
Actually, there’s a lot of evidence that points to intelligence being a sexually selected trait rather than naturally selected, so in that sense it may actually negatively correlate with survival. In other words, your big brain is the human equivalent of peacock features; it will get you laid but doesn’t do much good when a tiger comes around.
Think of it this way: to sit around doing math problems all day, you have to have the basic necessities for survival dealt with, which shows you’re a good mate within the current environment. Which is all well and good until times change, the going gets tough, and you need to kill something to put food on the table.
it will get you laid but doesn’t do much good when a tiger comes around.
This is categorically false, sorry
Sociopathic behaviours are always going to be a huge problem in large societies. They’re not even exclusive to humans anyway. Just look at all the parasites in nature.
All of our cognitive and social abilities break down when you get into large groups. We’re evolved to be able to work with extended family units where we have a reasonable ability to build personal relationships and trust networks among all of the people we interact with.
In large societies everyone becomes anonymous and we’re stuck with societal laws and norms which are constantly under attack. Our usual mechanisms for punishing betrayal through reputation damage and ostracism fall apart in an anonymous society. In more recent history we relied on societal institutions (democratic and judicial as well as private societies) and the media (newspapers, magazines, TV news) to cover some of this role but it was imperfect and only applied to the most infamous offenders.
Now we’ve lost even that limited media function due to the post truth revolution (thanks to the internet) and its acceleration of the breakdown of trust in societal institutions and the decline of the media.
All of our cognitive and social abilities break down when you get into large groups. We’re evolved to be able to work with extended family units where we have a reasonable ability to build personal relationships and trust networks among all of the people we interact with.
Our usual mechanisms for punishing betrayal through reputation damage and ostracism fall apart in an anonymous society. In more recent history we relied on societal institutions (democratic and judicial as well as private societies) and the media (newspapers, magazines, TV news) to cover some of this role but it was imperfect and only applied to the most infamous offenders.
Cool and agreed, but the original point holds up that greed and self-preservation always ruin things for groups of people trying to do anything together. Everything you mentioned is a symptom of corporate interests subverting democracies. Look, there’s nothing inherently wrong with corporations having an interest in their success, but govts. need to be able to curtail their worst tendencies because it makes sense to prioritize long-term benefits over short-term gains.
If people really give a fuck about monied interests and their control over democracies, then they should be pushing for higher taxes on the wealthy (like 250K or more per year) like it’s an existential crises. Because it is. Tbf, 250K is pretty normal in a HCOL, so higher taxes should take that into account.
I view governments with the same suspicion that most people around here view corporations. Look at history. The worst atrocities were committed by highly motivated and ideological governments.
When it comes down to it, it’s all just different ways of organizing groups of people and they’re all vulnerable to some of the same problems to do with anonymity, accountability (or lack thereof), and control.
Oh there’s still plenty of ways short of violence against people to solve this. This guy 100% echo chambered himself into thinking there was no other way. The spectrum does not jump straight to killing people after peaceful protests are ignored.
Ok but the CEOs are the sociopaths right? Because it appears to me that Luigi was applying irl solutions to the trolley problem
I stopped at “what’s the fucking point of humanity then?”
… Are you under the impression that there’s a point to living? Some grand plan or purpose that drives people?
The only reason I’m not in the ground already is because when I thought about it, my death would cause suffering to people I cared about, so I’d rather take on that suffering myself than put it on them. If everyone I cared about died, I’d petition for medical euthanasia, if that was denied, I’d go find the nearest bride and swan dive into pavement.
The only reason we exist is to have babies so they can exist and have babies. Human life, indeed all life, lives to procreate, and make more of itself. That’s it.
I’ve always questioned why we’re worthy of survival, but all the species we’ve killed off due to climate change, or hunting them to extinction, or destroying their habitat where they die off because they can’t survive in a different habitat, are not worthy of survival.
I’m not convinced that humans should continue to perpetuate themselves long term. Bluntly, I can’t point to anything genuinely good that we’ve done for any creature other than ourselves. We address environmental issues sure, but we caused them. The only thing we go out of our way to do, at all, and with significant disagreement and debate, is fix shit we fucked up. That’s it. Everything else has been a selfish pursuit of greed by humans.
What’s been happening, has not changed my mind on any of this.
I’m not crazy, and I’m not going to try to exterminate anyone because I don’t think humans should continue to exist. I’m still here to bring as much happiness and joy to the people I care about, and I don’t have the mental capacity to feel anything but contempt for everyone screwing everything up. I can’t spare the effort to hate anyone. It’s exhausting.
At this point, I just want everyone to leave me alone so I can live my tiny comfortable life with the people I actually care about, grow old and die… Hopefully in that order.
Sorry you had to write all that just to get downvoted. But what I meant to convey was that by some cosmic accident a cognitively advanced animal appeared, one that can seek to understand fundamental truths about the universe and its reality.
I just hold that cosmic accident in high regard, and think we have a duty as stewards of things we can understand using skills, talents and properties innate to us as a species. This is part of the reason that I think every human life wasted and not supported to its full potential is a failure of society.
Oh, I agree with much of what you say. I’m just not convinced that we as a society are valuable in any way that justifies our continued propagation.
Most of what I wrote was to qualify what I’m saying so that it’s understood. I expect downvotes because I’m basically calling humans as a species, not worthy of existing. Some people who are very ego driven proud homo erectus, can definitely take offense to my statements; so down votes are generally expected.
I suppose that some downvotes would also come from those that believe that humans were created by God, under that pretense, I would be insulting their God by saying we’re not worthy of existing. So yeah.
Between those two, I’m unmoved by the fact that some decided to down vote.
Well ours is the only species which can probe and understand why there is something instead of nothing. There may not be any intrinsic value in anything, but the act of discovery is meaningful.
I just want to point out that ours is the only species that we know of that can do those things.
It’s pure hubris to think that we’re the only ones in billions on billions of stars with potentially more than 10x that many planets in the universe that has sapience sufficient to ask the questions. Statistics says it’s extremely unlikely that humans are the only sapient life in the universe.
There’s a pretty reasonable societal model (that scales beyond 10 people living in a cave) that has so far prevented sociopatic behavior.
We have laws and we have democracy to establish them. Whatever happens in your dumbfukistant, in western Europe it’s unimaginable to be able to use violence and physical power to claim territory or food. Even a drunken fight in a bar will get you in a lot of legal trouble. E.g. being a stronger ape gets you exactly nowhere in life if you use want your power to dominate. You could use it to create, and you’d be rewarded.
Very similarly the economic system could be trivially adjusted to conform the societal values and violations would be prosecuted. All this requires is a democratic choice.
The societies so far democratically have no chosen to abolish capitalism. Although a lot of western-european democracies have severely limited the potential for abuse from this system.
We don’t need to develop mechanisms, we don’t need violent protests, we don’t need vigilantes. We simply need for people to choose differently. And if they don’t, it’s their choice.
Ah, yes, you in your default country definitely need a better democratic system, although Trump did win the popular vote, so I wouldn’t hope for that much change tbh.
How well is “western” Europe doing at curbing the global corporations ability to turn the earth into wasteland?
The majority of people in an average western European country want to drive their car and fly to their vacation destination. They also might heat their homes with gas.
Destruction of climate is not anti-democratic. There are green parties in every parliament and they get 15-30% of votes. E.g. only that many voters consider the issue of climate change to be pressing. The others believe things are fine, or that moderate measures are enough.
You keep preaching “evil corpos oppress us poor”. But this is simply not true. The majority of the population is pretty content with the status quo, and if they weren’t they could change it any election cycle.
You are making my point for me. They couldn’t do anything about the current system of they wanted to within the system. Consent has been manufactured, packaged, shipped, and bought.
They perfectly can. It requires them to make a collective choices that will require individual sacrifices in order to achieve collective gains (assuming people actually see it that way).
And that’s clearly not in anyone’s interest. And you’re one to tell them what’s wrong or right.
There’s no system. There are free individuals living their lifes as they see fit. But you somehow keep imagining an evil monster that suppresses everyone’s free will, while you, the hero, are unaffected.
If you actually believe there is no systemic oppression, and personal choice can change the world, I have no idea what to say except
We have laws and we have democracy to establish them. Whatever happens in your dumbfukistant, in western Europe it’s unimaginable to be able to use violence and physical power to claim territory or food.
Haha, read any historical account of western civilization. The west has always been great about backstabbing its non-west allies, or even each other.
People are people, don’t fall for some us vs. them bullshit, you’re just being a tool for someone else. It’s also pretty funny to me that half the countries some Americans look down on have had more women presidents or prime ministers, lol.
And you can’t seriously say democracy is working as intended when we don’t have campaign finance reforms, and have citizens united in the U.S.? You’re literally living in a world where a billionaire bought a country’s presidential election outcome! What a joke.
Sociopathic behaviour is not prevented, it is rewarded. Stepping on other people to claim more wealth is encouraged. A decent person has no money, in general, and most people are decent. Nobody chose this. Nobody voted for this, and there’s no vote which will put an end to it. We are, like it or not, in a situation where we cannot change the system to benefit us (us=the working/middle classes) by peaceful means. The ruling classes are extending their monopoly with every move, and will never willingly give power back. I’m terrified by the prospect, but looking at similar situations in history, I think violence is inevitable.
What are you on about? You can easily vote for far left in pretty much any of the functioning democracies in Europe. And if a radical left party were to win, they could easily implement a profit cap.
You’re talking about some “ruling class” as if we’re in a society where such bounds exist by birth right of some sort. Anyone can become a politician and be elected to be the main voice of the country’s legislative and executive branches. You don’t need violence to radically change everything, you need a majority’s approval. And, I’m telling you, your ideas are already out there and they’re not selling. They’re not selling even peacefully, but you somehow dream that someone will die for them?
Here’s my experience as a citizen of the United Kingdom.
A vote for a party which will benefit the majority of people (which you are calling the “far/radical left”) is ignored because of our first past the post political system and because of the mass media, which is rabidly pro-establishment. A lower rate of further education exacerbates this effect. They form an impenetrable system which disallows anything but the tiniest of incremental changes, while the climate and the wealth gap worsen exponentially and relentlessly.There is a ruling class, and it does largely depend on birthright. None of these billionaires are self made, look closely enough and you will find seed money in their mercurial rise, usually from a family member. You have your eyes shut if you think we’re not ruled by the wealthy. It’s a fact. If you want to argue this point with me you can, but you will lose.
In my country, it’s difficult to become a politician, you usually have to get a specific degree from one of three specific universities, which are much easier to get into if you are -you guessed it- rich.
Which ideas of mine are you talking about exactly? Without some specifics on what you think they are, your last two sentences just don’t land.
A vote for a party which will benefit the majority
We can stop the discussion right here. You clearly know better than the voters themselves what’s best for them. In my opinion, it would be the most efficient solution for us to nominate you to be a dictator for life, as you will achieve a better outcome for everyone than them thinking for themselves.
The rest of your argument continues with insults towards the voters disagreeing with your political views “uneducated, influenced by media, etc”. You, obviously, do see yourself as a superior being and thinker.
I don’t think debating democratic choices with you makes any sense. You’re anti-democratic.
You are caricaturing my arguments. It’s interesting, because you must understand them to a sufficient level to do this whilst not understanding then to a sufficient level to actually consider them. That’s quite a mental effort. Either that or you are for some reason understanding them properly, yet choosing to misrepresent them for some reason.
